[cabfpub] question about patent-free guidelines

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr>
wrote:
>
> This makes better sense now. I understand that the IPR Policy says: "We
> will do our best to have patent-free guidelines to promote widest adoption.
> If we get essential claims, we will form a PAG". The PAG's possible
> conclusions are listed in 7.3.2 and they all have a goal to resolve the
> patent issue, including f. "alternative licensing terms should be
> considered" which is different to an RF licensing. Doesn't this prove that
> it is possible to have a case (however rare that may be) where some non-RF
> methods are allowed to be used in the guidelines?
>

As previously disclosed, I agree with you, and the point I tried to make at
the F2F.

However, as mentioned in the just-posted
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-November/008774.html , a larger
part of the concern with Position 1 / Position 2, as described by Gerv, is
not whether or not the Forum can have encumbered methods (we're mostly
punting that discussion for the formation of a PAG), but understanding at
what point members are obligated to examine their IP portfolios, and the
risks in either approach.

Rather than spin this thread into that discussion, perhaps the above linked
message will help provide greater clarity on why the discussion between
Position 1 and Position 2 is seen by some to be so significant, and the
methods so dangerous.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161103/724c95e5/attachment-0003.html>